Category: History

Mercantilism was a free-trade economic system that was self containing and self sustaining. The system was practiced throughout Europe and colonial North America during the 18th century. The British mercantilist system aimed to minimize imports that cost the nation money and maximize exports that made the nation money. Colonies were England’s way of lowering their dependence on foreign nations. Each colony would provide a raw material to the crown, allowing England to reduce the number of exports needed from other nations.

In the late 1600s and throughout the 1700s, a series of laws called The Navigation Acts were set in place and enacted, restricting trade between England and it’s colonies. The acts were established to force colonial development that was favorable for England. It was also designed to stop direct colonial trade with the Netherlands, France and other countries in Europe. “The Staple Act of 1663 extended the Navigation Act by requiring that all colonial exports to Europe be landed through an English port before being re-exported to Europe” (The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics).

People living with-in the British colonies during the mercantilist era were forced to either buy directly from England or re-sell products made by English merchants in England, regardless of the price that could be obtained elsewhere. This caused anger amongst the people in the colonies and eventually led up to the American Revolution.

The mercantilist era was a period of rapid economic growth for England and its colonies. The mercantilist system remained in effect in the colonies up until 1849 when it was finally repealed. The end of the mercantilist era came with the fall of formal British Empire.

The traditional uniform worn by the United States Navy has evolved over the years, but like most military customs, traditions and practices, each piece of the uniform has played a role in the shaping of today’s naval uniform and plays a role in the history of the United States Navy- an outfit men and women all over America are proud to adorn. “Liberty cuffs” are a part of naval uniform tradition that cannot be found in the United States Naval code of conduct, due to the fact that these patches were strictly against military dress code. That did not stop sailors from adorning these patches while on “liberty” or around the town with fellow shipmates. The history of the development of the naval uniform traces the uniforms through significant changes dating from the 1770s to the 1980s. There are vast differences between the uniform of an official and that of an enlisted man.

Current foreign policy, at any point in history, has to do directly with two branches of government in particular–the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch. There are both public policy reasons, as well as Constitutional reasons for this. The American system of checks and balances allows this to happen, in order to ensure they would never be stuck with the tyranny the colonies experienced under Great Britain.

The Constitution gives Congress, or the Legislative Branch of America’s three-tiered government, the power to influence many factors that directly impact foreign policy. Congress has the power to control all commerce between states, as well as between different countries. This power is far-reaching, and includes, and has included things like protective tariffs on imported goods, as well as the taxation of these goods in order to keep the United States’ economy stable.

These powers have also extended to include another foreign policy tactic Congress has used in the past, and is currently using, in order to put pressure on foreign governments that are not friendly. A contemporary example of this is the current embargo America has against the communist regime currently in power. In addition to outlawing trade with the nation, travel to Cuba is also nearly impossible. Though it is hard to say the actual impact this has had on foreign relations with Cuba, it is nevertheless an example of one way Congress can influence foreign policy.

Moving even more in depth into the Legislative Branch’s influence on foreign policy from a Constitutional standpoint is literally written into the document, as well as being perhaps the most important foreign policy tool of all–the power to declare War. This declaration, though written into the Constitution, has come under increased scrutiny, especially in the latter half of the 20th century.

This is one of the roles the executive branch plays in foreign policy. Though it is written in the Constitution that it is Congress’ job to declare war, past Presidents have made it abundantly clear that as “Commander-in-Chief” of the country’s armed forces that the executive branch can have just as large an impact on foreign policy with regards to war as Congress can. Through Executive Orders, Presidents have established precedence in leading the United States military without Congressional approval.

This is very problematic as the conflicting Constitutional ideologies are constantly at odds–best illustrated in the Iraq War that, according to the biggest offender of the circumventing of the balance of powers, President George W. Bush, was “accomplished”. In reality, American troops are still stationed in the country, and a War that his father won in days is now decades long, with countless American lives lost.

This is not to propose the Executive should not have any say in foreign policy at all, however. When elected, a President chooses people to form his Cabinet, which includes the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Treasury, and the Secretary of Defense. These are key figures in foreign policy whose effectiveness cannot be denied–Hilary Clinton has worked wonders in the last five or so years, and has won back the support of many opponents to the almost autocratic policies of the Bush Administration. It seems the length of these relations will truly depend on the length of an effective administration.

This whole scenario illustrates everything that is wrong with the foreign policy of the United States–the circumventing of the balance of powers for ideological, fiscal, or partisan reasons. For this reason, the United Nations is absolutely critical in regulating foreign policy throughout the world, though it does have inherent flaws. One of the flaws is the lack of oversight, or punishment, for Western nations that do the opposite of UN policy, while other nations are held to different standards.

The circumvention of Congress, who, by the way, only approved a 90-day airstrike on Iraq, by President George W Bush to invade Iraq is a perfect example of this. In spite of the fact that the UN did not authorize the War in Iraq, a British-backed United States invasion began, and dictator Saddam Hussein’s regime was removed. Although Hussein’s regime had violated many UN sanctions in the past, the United States made themselves no better than the dictator they had overthrown, simply by ignoring the UN as well.

This is not the way United States foreign policy should ever be run, nor is it the way it was intended to run. The President and his (or, probably soon, her) Cabinet are vital in negotiations with foreign leaders, diplomats, and the like. This is especially important in times of great strain–a well-established dialogue can in some instances prevent the necessity for lives being lost unnecessarily.

Compare this situation to the current one that has been evolving with North Korea. Under UN sanctions, they are not to detonate nuclear bombs. They are also not to invade the South. If this should happen, military action was threatened. The UN put their foot down, and told North Korea that should they invade a country unnecessarily, appropriate action will be taken.

Rewind to Bush’s unsanctioned invasion of Iraq that did not yield even one “weapon of mass destruction”. This seems like an unnecessary invasion, and yet the United States was not punished in any way by the United Nations as they threaten to do to North Korea, or actually did in the first Gulf War when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.

Now this is the true problem with foreign relations in the broadest, but most applicable way possible. When some nations are held to standards that others are not, how is it possible to avoid conflict? Naturally these nations, perhaps not as developed, but no less of a nation, are going to feel slighted. Honestly, this is for good reason–they are slighted in the international community, and it comes down to an age-old problem of cultural synergy and the prejudices that come with it.

Whether it is the British colonization of India and South Africa, the long-lasting tradition of slavery in the United States, the Civil Rights Movement, or French colonization of Vietnam, all of these examples lead to the same place. Imperialism is ingrained into Western thought, a pseudo “white man’s burden” if you will, where less developed nations were exploited for resources and left poor. India has made a remarkable recovery from the shambles the British left it in, but is still a developing country. Poverty is widespread in Vietnam after the US/French coalition left the country. Unfortunately, Iraq is not faring much better, nor Afghanistan, where civil wars plague the region.

There is no way to fix the issue of foreign policy until the world becomes color-blind–a world where the international community does not look to exploit, but to redistribute and help others. Otherwise, the world is doomed to remain in a global battle of “keeping up with the Joneses'”–except the stakes are not a car or a television, but a missile coming right through the picture window that so accentuates both.

“Summing up U.S. Foreign Policy in Four Sentences.” Washington Times Communities. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 May 2013. <http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/what- world/2013/may/6/summing-us-foreign-policy-four-sentences/>.

“Transcript of the Constitution of the United States – Official Text.” Transcript of the Constitution of the United States – Official Text. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 May 2013. <http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitutio

Truman, de Gaulle and Krushchev are clearly three of the most decisive names of twentieth-century politics. From the position of politics and ideology, the three can be viewed as representing a triad of poles that were present in the politics of the last century: in the case of Truman, western capitalism and its form of democracy, in the case of Krushchev, Soviet communism, and in the case of de Gaulle, his eponymous Gaullism, which represented a form of French sovereignty amidst a Cold War defined by the superpowers of the United States and the Soviet Union. Hence, whereas these ideologies obviously shaped the political positions of these leaders, one can also approach their comparison in terms of a leadership style irrespective of politics and ideology; namely, all three have been come to be known as significant historical figures. Yet the question remains as to what extent this historical status is the result of individual leadership qualities as opposed to mere historical circumstances; furthermore, the question remains open as to what extent their respective ideologies influenced their leadership qualities. Any approach to comparison must take into account all these factors to bear any rigor, without falling into a pseudo-psychological analysis of “personality types.”

Nevertheless, a clear distinction between the three can be made in the case of De Gaulle: his political ideology is in essence inseparable from his leadership qualities. Whereas the fact that the political ideology associated with De Gaulle bears his own name may seem like a trivial point, it is not in the context of this question of leadership: here is clearly an assertive and almost “cult of personality” ideology, whereby the leader becomes a direct manifestation of the political ideology of the country. Namely, De Gaulle’s political decision to steer a path between the two superpowers, affirming French sovereignty amidst a bipolar world that seemed to exclude centers of power outside of this bipolarity, is a decision of a confident and inspired leader. In this sense, the most apt comparison of leadership qualities to De Gaulle would be perhaps Tito, who steered Yugoslavia along a similar middle path amongst the two superpowers. As Kritzman describes Gaullism, it is a “certain idea of France, a concept of the nation associated with Charles de Gaulle and predicated on the belief in France itself.” (51) In the case of de Gaulle, therefore, individual leadership is inseparable from political ideology; one could go even further, and perhaps state that the cult of personality and leadership of de Gaulle was so strong that his own individuality determined the course of French politics, and not vice versa.

In this case, Krushchev and Truman would seem to represent two less strong variants of leaders. Both, from this viewpoint, were merely working within the frameworks of their respective ideologies, and thus could not evoke a “cult of personality”, such as in the case of de Gaulle. However, in the case of Krushchev what is interesting is that there was a certain reverse cult of personality at work. For Krushchev’s political reign followed the reign of Stalin, which was an example of the cult of personality par excellence, and the focusing of the national politics on the leadership of the leader. Arguably, one of the crucial opening moments of Krushchev’s terms was his denunciation of Stalin and thus the cult of personality; Krushchev marked a radical shift in how the leadership of the Soviet Union was to be enacted. For example, Krushchev “was the first Soviet leader to travel widely abroad (something that Stalin deliberately avoided.)” (147) Krushchev’s leadership can thus be defined in terms of the opposite of de Gaulle: a rejection of the cult of personality towards a more “Western” and open style of leadership.

Both of Krushchev and de Gaulle’s leadership styles, considering the historical and political context in which they occurred, were therefore radical. Truman’s crucial decision historically, in contrast, relates to the atomic bomb attacks in Japan: from the perspective of leader, he hardly is as decisive a figure such as Krushchev and de Gaulle. Whereas the decision to use the atomic bomb was obviously difficult, it was also a clear attack on innocent civilians, instead of attacking military targets. At the same time, the Truman doctrine, proposed in response to the growing strength of the Soviet Union, took an aggressive stance to the latter in terms of “economic assistance” (39) and “even extreme military measures.” (39) Taking these two political decisions as examples of Truman’s leadership abilities, Truman was a leader who was essentially aggressive, unconcerned for human life outside of American borders – in this case, he represents a form of bureaucratic aggressor, carrying along with the nascent American industrial-military complex as its puppet-figure, while murdering hundreds of thousands of people worldwide, as evidenced by the fact that Truman is the only politician in history to not only use the atomic bomb, but also use the atomic bomb on civilians.

From this perspective, therefore, although all three figures are important figures who made crucial decisions, they represent different types of leaders. Krushchev and de Gaulle were not afraid of making decisions against their immediate historical context, in the case of Krushchev, the legacy of Stalinism, and in the case of de Gaulle, the bipolar world of the Superpowers. Truman appears as the anomaly in this group, committing mass murder on a scale that suggests a despotic leader of the barbaric past. In Truman, therefore, the figure of the leader apparent is the leader who when forced with the tough decision, chooses the easiest way out: mass violence and slaughter.

Works Cited

Bostdorff, Denise. Proclaiming the Truman Doctrine: The Cold War Call to Arms.

Texas A&M University Press, 2008.

Kritzman, Lawrence D. “Gaullism.” In L.D. Kritzman (ed.) The Columbia History of

In the 19th century, the German states were unified and became powerhouses in the second Industrial Revolution. Berlin became a leading manufacturer of automobiles and a large engineering hub. They began putting down railroads and became a large transportation port for Europe prior to the war.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, also known as the ‘Reconstruction Amendment’, was quite controversial and widely debated in America, especially in regards to the opposing views that many held on both sides. One particular view presented by Senator Davis in 1866 in regards to the Civil Rights Act of the same year, raised much public participation. Although many Americans agreed with Davis’ view, there were major sources of dissent, and the outcomes of such a debate will be discussed herein.

What seems to have motivated the Israelis to create the separation wall, the settlements in the occupied West Bank, and the expansion in in East Jerusalem (formerly known as the Arab quarter)? What justifications are used for expansion?

The Mongol Empire, initiated by Genghis Khan and continued by his descendents such as Kublai Khan, extended over the vast territory over Asia and into the depths of Eastern and Central Europe. What is perhaps most surprising about the military successes of the Mongol Empire is the fact that the Mongol people were essentially a relatively small tribe of migrant peoples, living a type of nomad lifestyle in the Mongol steppes. Yet at the same time such a lifestyle translated itself into an optimal military apparatus for conquering: the mobility of the Mongol forces was one of the key factors that led to their military dominance and almost historically unprecedented successes in the art of war and campaigning.

It was the labor conditions that drove the economics of slavery. The was a time of exploding growth with cotton, agriculture, trading and labor. The plantation owner was able to manufacture a working staff that did not take days off, that did not complain and they did not have to pay them. The plantation owner could keep all the profit while building a fortune in the South. Slavery because a way of life for the Southerners to survive and compete in the business markets. If the slaves lived in North, they would find homes, jobs, land, and opportunity but the North did not rely on slave labor to build their economy. It is a fact that slavery was one of the era’s that help build the United States of America. However, no one can deny the harsh treatment and families destroyed by this time of slavery. It is no doubt that the inhuman conditions that slaves were force to endure was the most inhumane acts in history of the U.S. These conditions were part of the labor force mentality. The plantation owners understand that installing fear in slaves would make them docile and obedient while they made millions off their sweat and labor. However, America could not have prospered without the slavery impact that made many Americans very wealthy.

Throughout her life, America has undergone several political changes. Many leaders have ruled this nation, each of them having different plans and objectives about the future of America. Of importance to note is that, most policies of these leaders have ended unnoticed. However, Reconstruction is a movement that had a grand impact on the Americans. This movement marked a time when America had many leaders with different goals and accomplishments. Though it happened, the results have been seen as both a failure and a success (Herron 2008).

American federalism encompasses a series of political power relationships between the state and federal governments. Serious struggles among executive, legislative, and the judicial arms of government occurred after the civil war when dual federalism emerged. Dual federalism describes a political ideology whereby power is shared between national and state governments under legislated agreements such as a constitution. Therefore, states are given unique executive, legislative and judicial powers (Shelden, 2009).

PART 2: Late 20th Century Genocide: Indonesia 1965, Cambodia, Rwanda and Bosnia/Kosovo

The Indonesian Genocide of 1965 occurred due to political conflicts in the country. Killing at least 102,800 people, the event has imposed that the unwillingness of the government to support its people’s needs could also be a source of power-controlled death among the nation’s population. Unlike the holocaust, the mass killings in Indonesia utilized ‘poverty’ as its major weapon of death. The unavailability of food made it easier for the people to get ill and later on die from hunger. The idea was focused on the extermination of the East Timorese people. Poisoning the only resources left for the people to use as a means of living or at least surviving, the East Timorese suffered from pain and death, which they thought were simply caused by the hard conditions of living.

In Cambodia, suspected rebels and ethnic groups were ordered to be killed by Pot Pot Tamok, the leader of Cambodia during the time. The people were killed to practically secure the stability of the government established under the name of Tamok. Meanwhile the Rwandan killings were because of the existence of ethnic conflict between the Hutus and the Tutsis, which resulted to several killings including women and children through the hands of the militia of both groups. The Bosnian genocide on the other end was the result of the conflict between Bosnia and Serbia, which was a specific disobedience of the clauses established in the Geneva Convention.

Considering the situations that occurred in the four instances of genocide presented in this section of the discussion, it could be analyzed that the source of the situation was merely an emergence of civil unrest. People wanting to be given more opportunity tried to get what others have or at least grab the chance of living others had to survive for their own cause. In Rwanda, the militia from both groups were established to grab resources from the members of the other ethnic group due to the belief that they were getting so much than what they actually deserve. Seeing other individuals to be less than important as themselves, these civilian groups intended to create possible resolutions to control the resources offered by the government or the primary resources that their environment provides.

These instances could have been avoided if the governments of the said nations were able to seek possible resolutions that could distribute resources to the people in a far much better approach so as to avoid scarcity and grabbing of resources. The US Holocaust museum and UN specifically entail to provide suggestion in making readily available help of supplies become the source of resolution for nations that might undergo the same situation at present. Nevertheless, this approach is not enough especially if the government of the nations would not agree to cooperate. The desire of saving the life of the masses would only be recognized properly if a higher power of control would be in higher power than the government itself. It could be understood that through the years, the pages of human history specifically indicates the condition of consideration given to situations by which modern operations of dealing with civil unrest is specifically dressed by governments and intervening agencies situated around the globe. Learning from the past indicates that human individuals tend to grow out of control especially if they are given the chance to impose power over their fellowmen. Seeing this condition in the past ought to give a notable point of distinction on how human leaders should be treated and how their personal desires should be controlled apart from that of their administrative responsibilities to avoid more bloodshed in the future.

The American Revolutionary War occurred between the years of 1775 and 1783. “The conflict arose from growing tensions between residents of Great Britain’s 13 North American colonies and the colonial government, which represented the British crown.” (History Channel, 2011). The conflict consisted of numerous skirmishes and battles that ultimately led with America gaining its independence from Britain in 1783.

In 1775, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence. This document proposed a Continental army to fight against the British forces in order to gain American independence. In 1776, the document was signed and the revolution was in full swing.

In an effort to crush the patriotic rebellion, British forces flocked to New York in July to try to stop the revolution- Washington, the leader of the troops in New York at the time, was forced to retreat to New Jersey. On Christmas however, Washington fought back with a surprise attack against the British, winning another victory over the British.

Saratoga was the turning point in the Revolutionary war. In July, the British troops suffered a devastating loss and surrendered Fort Ticonderoga over to the Americans. The British reacted by defeating American troops at Brandywine Creek a few months later. This battle left the British troops exposed however, and American troops attacked the British at Saratoga, where they ultimately surrendered in the north.

By 1781, Cornwallis’s army was completely surrounded by the American troops and the British was forced to ultimately surrender as a whole, ending the revolution.